Maksymy konwersacyjne i ich pomijanie w zdaniach

6 lat temuostatnia aktywność: 6 lat temu

Witam. Mam problem z określeniem, jaka maksyma konwersacyjna w poniższych zdaniach/wymianach została pominięta i dlaczego. Dla jasności, chodzi o conversational maxims: quality, quantity, relevance i manner.

1) Customer: Do you have coffee to go?
Attendant: Milk and sugar? <- sentencja, w której pominięto jedną z maksym

2) Customer: Do you do buttonholes?
Attendant: She'll back in an hour. <- sentencja...

3) Guest: The meal is delicious. (myślę, że tu została porzucona maksyma relevance, z racji, iż wg mnie samo zdanie stanowi
dygresję)

4) A: What on earth has happened to the roast beef?
B: The dog is looking very happy. <- sentencja... (czyżby to manner zostało porzucone? zdanie jest dość dwuznaczne)

Z góry dziękuje uprzejmie za wszelką pomoc :)

N	nattz1313 Adeptka

parseq - Poziom C3 ? Oj daleko mi... :-) - 6 lat temu zmieniany: 6 lat temu

piotr.grela - O wrescie cos co zastymulowalo moje komorki mozgowe :-) - 6 lat temu zmieniany: 6 lat temu

Wykup dostęp, aby dodać komentarz.

Odpowiedzi: 1

Jeśli pozwolisz, odpowiem po angielsku, bo chcę trochę więcej używać języka, a i tak na studiach pewnie posługujesz się głównie angielskim. Jakby po polsku miało być łatwiej, to dopiszę.

First off, all of the examples that you provided violate either the Relevance or the Manner Maxim by P. Grice. There’s nothing with the Quality or the Quantity so we have to choose between the two. It’s not that obvious which one is correct as in some cases both seem to be OK. I will give my suggestions and possible explanations.

1) Relation/Relevance - Although the second sentence does not relate to the first one directly, both speakers can possibly understand each other. The attendant might answer this way because it’s very likely that the customer wants to place an order. That’s why the attendant skips the answer to the first question and asks whether the customer wants milk and sugar in their coffee.

2) Again, I think relevance works best because the question was about buttonholes, not about a person. Just as in the previous example, the message might be totally clear despite the fact that the answer is indirect. It’s possible there’s a lady who can help the customer with their issue so the attendant says that she will be back in an hour.

3) I don’t know. If there’s only one sentence, you’re probably right because it doesn’t relate to anything.

4) Relevance - The answer doesn’t relate to the question directly. You have a point that the sentence is ambiguous but it also seems irrelevant to the whole discussion. I’ve found a source that supports the idea that this sentence violates the Maxim of relevance. I believe it’s on the 12th page.
http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg45/lecture%20slides/gricean%20maxims.pdf

I’m not sure if picking relevance in all of the examples is correct. That's what I would choose, though. I think the Maxim of manner is more about the clarity of expression and using the correct word order. Still, those rules are pretty vague. Just as I explained, in some cases the meaning of the sentence might be non-literal. Paul Grice used a term "implicature" for all the things that are not clearly stated but can be implied by a speaker, eg.
A: Do you want to go to the pub?
B: I’m reading a book.
It seems that the speaker B doesn’t want to go to the pub, even though they did not say that directly.

Here’s more about this issue:
https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/aal2013/branches/pragmatics/example-research-conversational-implicature-and-maxims

I hope it’ll be of help to you.
NY

First off, all of the examples that you provided violate either the Relevance or the Manner Maxim by P. Grice. There’s nothing with the Quality or the Quantity so we have to choose between the two. It’s not that obvious which one is correct as in some cases both seem to be OK. I will give my suggestions and possible explanations.

1) Relation/Relevance - Although the second sentence does not relate to the first one directly, both speakers can possibly understand each other. The attendant might answer this way because it’s very likely that the customer wants to place an order. That’s why the attendant skips the answer to the first question and asks whether the customer wants milk and sugar in their coffee.

2) Again, I think relevance works best because the question was about buttonholes, not about a person. Just as in the previous example, the message might be totally clear despite the fact that the answer is indirect. It’s possible there’s a lady who can help the customer with their issue so the attendant says that she will be back in an hour.

3) I don’t know. If there’s only one sentence, you’re probably right because it doesn’t relate to anything.

4) Relevance - The answer doesn’t relate to the question directly. You have a point that the sentence is ambiguous but it also seems irrelevant to the whole discussion. I’ve found a source that supports the idea that this sentence violates the Maxim of relevance. I believe it’s on the 12th page.
http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg45/lecture%20slides/gricean%20maxims.pdf

I’m not sure if picking relevance in all of the examples is correct. That's what I would choose, though. I think the Maxim of manner is more about the clarity of expression and using the correct word order. Still, those rules are pretty vague. Just as I explained, in some cases the meaning of the sentence might be non-literal. Paul Grice used a term "implicature" for all the things that are not clearly stated but can be implied by a speaker, eg.
A: Do you want to go to the pub?
B: I’m reading a book.
It seems that the speaker B doesn’t want to go to the pub, even though they did not say that directly.

Here’s more about this issue:
https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/aal2013/branches/pragmatics/example-research-conversational-implicature-and-maxims

I hope it’ll be of help to you.
NY

Gość

6 lat temuzmieniany: 6 lat temu

parseq - I estimate my level around B1 and "C3" remains hopelessly out of my reach.
However, I read newyorkcity's carefully lettered thoughts as usual with interest!
Two sentences awoke my grammatical attention:
"(...) whether the customer wants milk and sugar in their coffee."
"(...) there’s a lady who can help the customer with their issue (...)"
May I kindly ask for the reason of use "their" instead of "his" above? - 6 lat temu zmieniany: 6 lat temu

darkobo - It was explained some time ago.
When we do not know the sex of a person or both are possible we use "they/their" instead of "he/his or she/her". - 6 lat temu zmieniany: 6 lat temu

Gość - That is an excellent question! I used that form on purpose. In English, some nouns can refer to both genders, eg. "a customer", "a speaker" or even "a person". If you know the gender of the person you’re talking about, it’s not a big deal. The problem arises when you mean both genders. Consider this example: "Any person who wants to join the course needs to have his / her / his or her / their own book. Traditionally, "he"/"his" would be the most preferred choice. Recently, there has been a strong trend to use gender-neutral pronouns because "he" is a male form and doesn’t include women. That’s why singular they is getting more popular. - 6 lat temu

Gość - However, some English users are reluctant to accept this form and claim that it is ungrammatical. "They/their" is also a plural form. That might cause some misunderstanding.
Anyway, singular they is widespread and has a long history. It has been used by many popular writers, including William Shakespeare. It’s correct to use "he" or "they" in the examples that you mentioned.
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
https://www.quora.com/In-English-is-someone-a-person-a-he-or-a-she - 6 lat temu

Wykup dostęp, aby dodać komentarz.